1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to keyboards such as used for typewriting and computer data entry and the like, and more particularly to a system for configuring a keyboard so that it is more easily learned and used by typists and users.
2. Description of the Related Art
With the advent of the typewriter, keyboards having keys corresponding to particular letters have been widely used for many years. Such keyboards are well established in the art.
Initially, typewriters often jammed because the keyboard used for the typewriters enabled the typist to go faster than the typewriter could type. This would cause the typewriter arms with the upraised letters to jam, causing the typewriting process to stop and forcing the typist to stop and clear the jam before proceeding.
This problem with initial keyboards or key sequences for typewriters was resolved by the implementation of the standard QWERTY keyboard. The QWERTY keyboard gets its name from the first six letters on the upper left hand side of the keyboard. The QWERTY keyboard was designed to actually slow the typist down so that the keys would not become jammed. Certain other accommodations or alignments may have taken place so that, for example, the two most frequently used keys would not cause each other to jam when typed in quick succession.
An alternative to the QWERTY keyboard is the DVORAK keyboard. The DVORAK keyboard is also well established and known in the art and was basically designed to provide a more ergonomic keyboard, placing the keys most used adjacent those fingers which are more able to use them. As people often use the letters E and T, these letters may be disposed adjacent the fingers that are more apt or able to use them.
Both of these keyboards suffer from the drawback that they are difficult to learn. They are difficult to learn conceptually because the keys are not disposed in any well-known organized sequence. They are also difficult to learn because the keys that are most used are not located in any regular location that easily conforms to a person's digital/finger anatomy or the mind's concept of the regular structure a keyboard often provides.
Many people may be hesitant to use a computer, typewriter, or other device due to the keyboard involved. Not knowing where the needed keys are leads to doubt that the proper key will be quickly found and fear that it will be a time-consuming process. Consequently, there may be some, if not many, individuals who consider a keyboard to be an imposition that is difficult to overcome due to its daunting nature and the fact that keyboard entry can be a slow and tedious process.
It would be an addition to the art to provide a means by which keyboards could be provided that are easy to use for beginners, but also allow established or experienced users to type quickly. The Keyboard Configuration System set forth herein satisfies both these criteria.
Some segment of the world's population has to perpetually learn or relearn the locations of keyboard letters. The existing QWERTY and the two-hand DVORAK keyboard layouts are well-known examples of keyboards used for typewriters, computers, and the like. These keyboard designs or structures may exclude that untutored population segment from knowledge-based society due to their design and complexity. Simplified layouts developed by the Keyboard Configuration System set forth herein serve as a means for inclusion of that population segment and make easier the learning and assimilation of such keyboards. The size of that population segment and the consequent future popularity of simplified keyboard layouts should not be underestimated. Furthermore, experienced typists can benefit from the System, as frequently used keys are readily available to the typist's fingertips.
Several prior attempts have been made in the art with respect to keyboards, keyboard configurations, and the like as reflected by the indication of background art, below, which may be regarded as useful for the understanding, searching and examination of the invention set forth and claimed herein. Brief descriptions of such prior attempts are set forth below. While the descriptions are believed to be accurate, no admission is made by them regarding their subject matter which is solely defined by the patent or reference involved. Unless otherwise indicated, the references are U.S. patents.
U.S. Pat. No.INVENTORDATE OF ISSUE6,053,647ParkinsonApr. 25, 20005,879,089ArmelMar. 9, 19995,836,705ChoateNov. 17, 19985,584,588HarbaughDec. 17, 1996Des. 368,708Maynard et al.Apr. 9, 19964,519,721GardnerMay 28, 19955,387,042BrownFeb. 7, 19954,927,279MorganMay 22, 19904,824,268Diernisse H. V.Apr. 25, 19894,715,736McGunnigleDec. 29, 19874,633,227MennDec. 30, 19864,613,247McGunnigleSep. 23, 1986EP 0 066 991Rushforth et al.May 21, 19823,847,263XNov. 12, 1974  185,714Allen, R. T. P.Dec. 26, 1876
The McGunnigle '736 and '247 patent references disclose a keyboard that can have different letter formats wherein the assigning of the letters to specific keys is based on the frequency of use of each letter in a given language.
In the '736 patent, the relative ease of accessibility of each key member to the fingers of the user's hands is given as an additional criteria for constructing the keyboard. This relative ease of accessibility is not necessarily linked or associated with the “adjacency” present in the Applicant's claimed keyboard system. In the '247 patent, the same relative ease of accessibility is used as a criteria as is a certain relative sloping of the keys between the left and right hands. In both of these patents, certain keyboard configurations are set forth that generally do not resemble the ones achieved by Applicant's system as claimed, nor is Applicant's claimed method used.
The Choate '705 patent reference discloses a keyboard arrangement that is based on the frequency of use of each letter. By concentrating work on a home row, finger extension, flexion, and travel is reduced to increase speed, accuracy, and safety. Yet, while reducing finger extension, flexion, and travel, the adjacency of the letters are not taken into account as does Applicant's claimed system.
The Brown '042 patent reference discloses a keyboard system that can be remapped by using software and template overlays. This system is directed towards a multilingual keyboard system that can incorporate a selectable key-mapping scheme according to user or other preferences. Such a keyboard system can support multiple character sets which provides significant advantages in countries such as India having several alphabets.
No disclosure is made to a keyboard system that is configured according to both frequency of use as well as adjacency. Consequently, this reference does not approach the subject matter set forth herein and in Applicant's claims.
In the Parkinson '647 patent reference, the user friendly and efficient keyboard is set forth where the letters are in alphabetical order so that they are easy to find and the locations are easy to learn and retain. No indication of arrangement according to frequency of use of the letters is set forth in the Parkinson '647 patent. Consequently, Applicant's system and claims far surpass the subject matter set forth in the Parkinson '647 patent.
In the Armel '089 patent reference, a keyboard arrangement is set forth with a specific arrangement of keys. No indication of the use of a simultaneous application of frequency and adjacency requirements is set forth, criteria which are needed with respect to Applicant's system and claims.
In the Harbaugh '588 patent reference, a computer keyboard layout is set forth that takes into account only the alphabetical arrangement of the keys. No consideration of frequency of use or alphabetical adjacency is taken into account. Consequently, this patent reference does not approach Applicant's system claims.
In the Maynard et al. '708 design patent reference, an alphabetical keyboard arrangement is set forth that does not take into account a frequency of use or alphabetical adjacency.
In the Morgan '279 patent reference, keyboards for homes are disclosed where the vowels are separated from the consonants. While the alphabet is in its natural sequential order, no frequency of use criteria or alphabetical adjacency criteria are used in order to determine the keyboard layout.
In the Diernisse H. V. '268 patent reference, an ergonomic keyboard is disclosed which is designed to take maximum advantage of the shape, dexterity, and strength of the hands and fingers. No frequency of use or alphabetical adjacency in a spatial sense are used as criteria in order to achieve the ergonomic keyboard set forth in the reference.
In the Menn '227 patent reference, a programmable keyboard for a typewriter or similar device is set forth that allows the user to select from a number of predetermined different keyboard arrangements such as QWERTY or Dvorak arrangements. This is in distinction to Applicant's system and claims which set forth a method of designing keyboards and resulting keyboard designs from the method that take into account frequency of use as well as alphabetical adjacency. These criteria are absent from the Menn '227 patent reference.
In the Gardner '721 patent reference, a typewriter keyboard layout is set forth that has a keyboard divided into three substantially horizontal rows and provides a keyboard that is alphabetical in left to right order. Frequency of use criteria is not used in determining the typewriter keyboard layout of the Gardner '721 patent reference, nor is alphabetical adjacency, something which goes beyond mere alphabetical order. Applicant's system of claims require both frequency of use and alphabetical adjacency, making the Gardner '721 patent reference a disclosure which does not bear closely upon Applicant's claims.
In the European patent application publication number 006699182, a character keyboard is set forth that has distinct zones and keys of varying sizes with the central keys generally smaller than the larger outlying keys. No disclosure with respect to the arrangement of the keyboard arising from frequency of use and alphabetical adjacency is set forth in the European patent application publication.
In the X '263 patent reference, an English keyboard scheme is set forth that provides a spatial arrangement for the letter keys on the keyboard which can be balanced for either dextral or sinistral typists hands and fingers to place the greater portion of the typing on the home row and distributing the remainder to upper and lower rows. This in distinction to Applicant's system and claims which are based upon the arrangement and achievement of a keyboard based upon frequency of use and alphabetical adjacency.
In the Allen '714 patent reference, an improvement in typewriters is set forth which does not deal directly with the keyboards for such a typewriter. Moreover, no selection or design of a keyboard based upon frequency of use and alphabetical adjacency is set forth.
The remaining references may have one or more elements in common with the invention of the present case. However, none of them are believed to be any more pertinent to patentability than those discussed above.
Such concerns may also be extended to keyboards for languages other than English as well as keyboards designed for alternative department configurations (for example, where only the thumbs are used predominately, or just the fingers, etc.).